Forrest Gump 4K UHD (1994)

[Fat Phil]

Doesn't seem to look terrible across the board, just inconsistent. Some shots look like a nice upgrade - Cap 13 for example. But then in others, it looks weird.
Example -
https://www.caps-a-holic.com/c.php?g...118102&i=4&l=0
In the 1080p, despite the lower resolution, sweat on Gary Sinise's face is palpable. And look at the texture of the skin on Tom Hanks' throat/neck. In the UHD, the detail has been smooshed and everything looks smoothed over.

[andreasy969]

Originally Posted by reanimator

Sorry, which shot are you saying looks way too processed?

Actually all of them. This are only my main offenders:

#1 (weird/fake? grain), #2 (DNR), #3 (DNR and weird grain again), #5 DNR, #6 DNR, #10 (extremely processed), #12 (heavy DNR and extremely processed)

And the saddest part is that it obviously could've looked great, since it still manages to smash the poor BD.

Paramount is a mystery to me - they give us unmolested Tomb Raiders, but they give us effed-up Gump.

[reanimator]

Originally Posted by andreasy969

Actually all of them.

I'm getting the disc today and hopefully will see it later tonight. Based on the caps, the only thing jumping out as being an obvious error is the street pavement in cap 1 -- and I suspect it looks even worse in motion. Most of the other caps are showing a substantial improvement in detail, and much stronger retention in the highlights. The Sapphire BD looks like a DVD by comparison.

[Agent Kay]

Originally Posted by Bond84

"Zoom in on her hair"

Good grief. Does anybody actually just watch the movie anymore? That UHD screenshot makes the bluray look like an old DVD and people are complaining about what her hair looks like when you pause and zoom in.

We don't deserve 4k UHD. I think everyone would be much happier with their old laserdiscs.

You see it more in motion, the zoom is for people that cannot see the issue full frame like I could.

[Yellbean2002]

So if I only had the dvd, which should I get? Thhe Blu or 4K?

[Ant1010]

I held off because of the numerous negatives comments in here. After looking at those screenshots I have no clue why. It drastically looks better. I will be picking this up later today

[UpsetSmiley]

It looks amazing but then it doesn't. It has almost a digitised look in some of those caps, what with the aliasing replacing what should be grain.

Even the grain haters don't like it! This is a controversial one for sure.

[andreasy969]

Originally Posted by reanimator

I'm getting the disc today and hopefully will see it later tonight. Based on the caps, the only thing jumping out as being an obvious error is the street pavement in cap 1 -- and I suspect it looks even worse in motion. Most of the other caps are showing a substantial improvement in detail, and much stronger retention in the highlights. The Sapphire BD looks like a DVD by comparison.

Mine is on its way as well and going by the caps I'd still pick the UHD over the BD any day, but it still looks rather subpar to say the least. With UHD I just expect more. It'll also still be interestering how certain CGI scene turn out. I would've thought caps would include a Gump/Jenny reunion cap for ex.

Funny enough, I actually don't mind the pavement in #1.

[ROSS.T.G.]

Originally Posted by Fat Phil

Doesn't seem to look terrible across the board, just inconsistent. Some shots look like a nice upgrade - Cap 13 for example. But then in others, it looks weird.
Example -
https://www.caps-a-holic.com/c.php?g...118102&i=4&l=0
In the 1080p, despite the lower resolution, sweat on Gary Sinise's face is palpable. And look at the texture of the skin on Tom Hanks' throat/neck. In the UHD, the detail has been smooshed and everything looks smoothed over.

Yeah but smoother is better right? Right?!

[NealHanna]

The stills remind me of my phone's pics. As if there's some digital something or other that appears to be trying to keep fine detail, but all it really does is create compression-like artifacts in certain areas or omits detail completely. How odd.

[nickpap7]

Too bad for the gratuitous processing because the UHD in general smashes the ancient dvd-era mastered BD.

[HD Goofnut]

I just went through these caps and some definitely look better than others. There's certainly some DNR being applied in places. I don't regret purchasing it today, but I do wish it would have been handled better.

[Fat Phil]

Originally Posted by ROSS.T.G.

Yeah but smoother is better right? Right?!

Lol. Damn straight! Gots to manage that grain brah!

It's funny. Reading Bill Hunt's review, the reason he gives for the de-graining the live action stuff is to "better match the lower resolution visual effects shots". That kind of thinking drives me crazy. Just leave it alone - I'd much rather have occasional, understandable dips in quality than a 'consistent' but processed looking transfer. But's that's me, no doubt other folks appreciate the (not so subtle) massaging.

[Bates_Motel]

Originally Posted by ROSS.T.G.

Yeah but smoother is better right? Right?!

No, but when there's that much more detail and a semblance of grain still left then yeah, the UHD is far better. I haven't seen it in motion, so I don't know if its smeary at all, but judging from the caps, it's easily the best the film as ever looked on video.

Originally Posted by Fat Phil

Lol. Damn straight! Gots to manage that grain brah!

It's funny. Reading Bill Hunt's review, the reason he gives for the de-graining the live action stuff is to "better match the lower resolution visual effects shots". That kind of thinking drives me crazy. Just leave it alone - I'd much rather have occasional, understandable dips in quality than a 'consistent' but processed looking transfer. But's that's me, no doubt other folks appreciate the (not so subtle) massaging.

And most people would be crying about how the effects look so terrible. Not to mention, its easier for your eyes to adjust when it's not constantly changing quality. Look how distracting it is in older films when it suddenly cuts to a dupe when a fade is about to happen. HUGE dip in quality, and much more noticeable than if it were managed in a sense. Aliens had grain management and most people think it looks great (color revisionism aside). It can be done, and IS done more than people actually realize, they just can't tell all the time.

I don't think there's any right way to do some of these films, because CGI and digital really screwed a lot of films over when it was in its infancy in terms of it being future-proofed.

[ROSS.T.G.]

Originally Posted by Fat Phil

Lol. Damn straight! Gots to manage that grain brah!

It's funny. Reading Bill Hunt's review, the reason he gives for the de-graining the live action stuff is to "better match the lower resolution visual effects shots". That kind of thinking drives me crazy. Just leave it alone - I'd much rather have occasional, understandable dips in quality than a 'consistent' but processed looking transfer. But's that's me, no doubt other folks appreciate the (not so subtle) massaging.

I know. But spending years in these threads most people don’t like grain and worse many reviewers don’t either. I showed some people a few titles including Matrix, Ghostbusters, SPR and they all said how grainy it was. You would think that a format for videophiles would retain the grain but nope.

[harpolini]

Woah, based on some early reviews I was expecting a Predator scale DNR massacre. I always thought the BD was pretty decent but looking at the caps the 4K make the BD look like a DVD by comparison. Sold.

[Khronikos]

Originally Posted by andreasy969

Actually all of them. This are only my main offenders:

#1 (weird/fake? grain), #2 (DNR), #3 (DNR and weird grain again), #5 DNR, #6 DNR, #10 (extremely processed), #12 (heavy DNR and extremely processed)

And the saddest part is that it obviously could've looked great, since it still manages to smash the poor BD.

Paramount is a mystery to me - they give us unmolested Tomb Raiders, but they give us effed-up Gump.

Indeed, the bluray was never anything special. This could have been a 5/5 transfer, and it's ridiculous what they did here. No thanks.

[Khronikos]

Originally Posted by SplitScreen

Finally got to watching this UHD tonight. Like other posters have mentioned this disc is quite inconsistent. I watched it in Dolby Vision and some scenes are more detailed than the BD and look quite superb but then you get scenes that look like a modern digital film, losing the grain and texture of the BD, and being replaced with a perfect smoothness.

Colours on the UHD fluctuate too with them being very toned down and much more natural/neutral looking for the most part. The BD looks overall warmer throughout but then sometimes the UHD colours suddenly come alive in certain scenes and look quite rich also, so it's quite a mixed bag.

The UHD is sometimes darker too. The BD is more consistent with the black levels as a couple of the darker scenes on the UHD didn't look too good IMO. Almost too dark and a bit fuzzy/noisy. Again, that's inconsistent as some night scenes looked good (Vietnam in the rain).

Dunno, can't make up my mind about this. Some areas I prefer the UHD, some the BD. Overall, I reckon the UHD will probably win for me just because of the detail increase in some areas...but still it's not as easy a call as it sounds. The rating on here of 2.5 is definitely out of whack. I can see what the reviewer is saying but 2.5 isn't right. It's hovering more around 4 for me.

A 4 LOL. No way in hell is this a B grade for a UHD transfer. You are out of your mind. Bluray.com is EXACTLY right, and it's ridiculous that people complain about them being too generous and too harsh. This reviewer reviewed this film correctly.

[Fat Phil]

Originally Posted by Bates_Motel

And most people would be crying about how the effects look so terrible. Not to mention, its easier for your eyes to adjust when it's not constantly changing quality. Look how distracting it is in older films when it suddenly cuts to a dupe when a fade is about to happen. HUGE dip in quality, and much more noticeable than if it were managed in a sense. Aliens had grain management and most people think it looks great (color revisionism aside). It can be done, and IS done more than people actually realize, they just can't tell all the time.

I don't think there's any right way to do some of these films, because CGI and digital really screwed a lot of films over when it was in its infancy in terms of it being future-proofed.

I do agree that there's not always a perfect solution. There's going to be trade-offs somewhere along the line.

I could be totally off base but wouldn't plentiful grain be beneficial to CGI and 35mm footage, almost acting as a dither and helping to better blend the two? I felt the grain management on the Jurassic Park UHD really hurt the CGI stuff, more so than anything else.

[Khronikos]

Originally Posted by ROSS.T.G.

People buy the movies they want. It’s that simple. Studios are the only ones responsible for subpar presentations. Enjoy your crusade.

And you keep accepting your ****ing garbage until it's all garbage. High-tier values you must carry through your life.